Let 'Em Play

I read an article in the local lefty-entertainment mag, NUVO, this week that discusses the Green Party's Secretary of State candidate's attempt to collect the 30,000 signatures he needs to get on the ballot. Bill Stant, the candidate in question, says his goal is actually to get 50,000 signatures to avoid duplicates, unreadables, and non-registered voters. That's probably a safe bet.

Now, before I begin, let me just say that I'm supporting and plan on voting for Mike Kole, the Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State. Mike is a great candidate and actually has a chance, I think, to pull a major portion of the vote. I'd encourage everyone who comes around, if you haven't already, to go view his web page and his Libertarian points. I'd also like to point out that, while I see NUVO do a lot of puff pieces on Democrats and Greens, amazingly, they rarely include Libertarians. Just an observation, but it is a pretty left-leaning little weekly and frankly most Libertarians in this state are pretty conservative.

Back to Stant. Although Stant only has 6,500 signatures, he seems hopeful that his supporters can round up the necessary ink to get him on the ballot. I say, it shouldn't even be as hard as it is. The state of Indiana, like many states, makes it ridiculously hard to get on the ballot if you're a "third party". The two party system we live under includes the same two parties who write the law, and those parties aren't eager to have competition draining their vote totals in a state where turnout is low enough anyway. But third parties, I think, provide a strong voice of opposition to the status quo of the Big Two and force them to adjust and realign to meet the issues being brought up by these other parties. This results in better government, because issues important to the people, but not really to the Big Two, get roped into the election. What bad can come from that?

So, I say, let 'em play. Why not? More viewpoints, even ones as far left as the Greens, can only help to crystallize other viewpoints. In this case, it really is "the more the merrier".

Now, another aspect to the article were Green viewpoints. I thought I would examine them briefly to see if I might have any sympathies towards any of their platform planks.

Electoral reform: The Greens want public financing of all statewide elections and equal access on all public TV and radio.

Well, I certainly disagree with the public financing part. I have my taxes going to enough programs without paying for people I don't agree with's campaigns. I have no trouble with them getting out there and spreading their message. They just aren't going to do it on my dime. And since I want to see public funding for TV and radio to cease, I don't agree with the "Equal Time/Fairness Doctrine" slag either.

Corporate Social Responsibility: The Greens want companies held accountable for layoffs and outsourcing and want some kind of 'economic plan' that funnels public cash toward 'independent, community-based businesses'.

So they want socialist control of business, then. Nope, can't say I'm for that either. Holding companies accountable for market forces beyond their control (we have to pay $17 an hour to our workers when the Indians pay $5 for ex.) stinks of totalitarian control of business. Creative market force would be stifled and it would end up with government ruining what was left of most businesses, forcing those businesses to fund positions that they couldn't and remain economically viable. But that's not really the Greens' concern, is it? If they're big fat cat businessmen, then they should expect to be reviled, according to the Greens. And any plan where government funnels our cash to funding "independent community-based businesses" is a recipe for disaster. I guarantee it. If you're really that curious, just ask why.

Ecological Sustainability: The Greens want the U.S. to support treaties on global warming, alternative energy and clean air and water.

Ok, last thing first, our air and water is pretty damn clean. It's the cleanest it's been in a long time and getting cleaner. Read the EPA studies, read the IDEM studies. Our efforts and the laws are working. Companies and the public are on board to help keep it clean, because it improves quality of life. Although we can always improve, I don't think we need Green Party-engineered laws to help get us there.

As far as alternative energy goes, yay, when it becomes economically viable, let me know. Again, I'd rather private corporations did the work than government. Government has given us how many alternative energy sources after all that money we've thrown at it? That's right, zero.

And lastly, they're referring to treaties like Kyoto. Funny enough, these treaties always leave out the developing giants of India and China. They are using more natural resources than ever trying to ratchet themselves into the position of World Powers, in China's case perhaps even a Superpower. So, we're supposed to back initiatives that reduce greenhouse gases by a couple percent over the next hundred years and cripple our economies in the face of these developing juggernauts who don't have to comply? Oh, and we're supposed to do this based on junk science that even in my college days in geology I could see was bupkis that, funneled by Lefty money says we're to blame for any of it based on ridiculously inferior climate models? Yeah, I'm not suicidal just yet. I'll say no on this one too.

Social Justice: The Greens believe in living wages, univeral health care and "full equality for every person".

So, in review, socialism/communism five-year plan kind of stuff, a rotted and failing healthcare system like Britain and Canada have that costs taxpayers billions and "full equality", which translates in Greenspeak as set-asides and incentives for anyone who isn't a white male. Yeah...nope on that one too.

And anytime you hear the term social justice, you can rest assured that the backing principles behind it are Marxist/collectivist and not in the interests of individual freedom. Guaranteed.

Non-violence: Condeming war and promoting diplomacy.

This translates as, as long as Leftists are in power, we'll decide what people to bomb and not you. I don't recall seeing the Greens out their picketing the Serbs being bombed into the Stone Age, but then again they were white and Christian, so... Then again, I could have missed the protests that week.

In addition, my experience with such platforms is they never take into account the realities that the world is a brutal place, and everyone is always trying to knock off #1, which currently is the U.S. These "platforms" usually operate on the assumption that U.S. = bad and the rest of the world = good. If that's not naive, I'm not sure what is.

Personal and global responsibility: the Greens believe in "protecting the planet" and being sustainable. Such sustainability arguments were made by fascists who wanted to see their population reduced to "sustainable" levels also. The eco-friendly, human bad/nature good philosophy this springs from basically requires that the human race put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. I'm not ready to concede to the planet just yet.

Well, there you have it, a brief review of the whacky Greens. And yes, I still want to see them on the ballot, even though I plan on doing my little part to convince people of how ridiculous their platform is. That's how this representative republic thing should work.